DEEPAK ROSHAN,J. - (1.) The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.242/2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No.3549/1998, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 409 IPC and was sentenced to undergo SI for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, has been sustained.
(2.) The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of informant, namely, Raj Kumar Prasad, alleging therein that the appellant Sashi Bhushan Singh was posted as Cashier in Dhanbad Municipality. It was found that he had misappropriated the funds of the municipality for which the police case being case no.690 of 1996 was instituted. He remained in jail in case for considerable period of time and was released on bail. Subsequently one Sohi Lal Rai gave an application on 22.08.1998 that his GPF amount was withdrawn but he was not paid the due amount. On inquiry, it was found that the appellant Sashi Bhushan Singh has withdrawn about Rs.15,420/- from the GPF account of three persons, namely, Sohi Lal Rai on 24.07.1996 to the tune of Rs.11,920/-, of Chinta Hari to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and of Pyari Lal Hari to the tune of Rs.1,500/- on 07.09.1996 which was not paid to the beneficiaries. Accordingly this case was instituted.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case of misappropriation is made out. It has been admitted by the PW-2 in his cross examination that money which was withdrawn from the bank was not distributed rather it was kept on a locker. The key of the locker was kept with the petitioner. It is also stated that the locker was broken at the instance of the district administration from where Rs.19,000/- were recovered. The learned counsel further submits that at best it can be a case of negligence as such the petitioner should not be convicted for the offence under Section 409 IPC. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in 2014 Vol 7 SCC 215 where law has been laid down in para 16-18 as under: 17. It is no doubt true that the courts have to be very careful while exercising the power under Section 482 CrPC. At the same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold. A clear reading of the complaint does not make out any offence against the appellant Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC. We are of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit, it all amounts to negligence in discharging official work, at the maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty. 18. In view of our above discussion, we have come to an irresistible conclusion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC is a pure abuse of process of law and the complaint case deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice." ;